Comments on: So You Want My Job: Nuclear Engineerhttp://www.artofmanliness.com/2009/01/07/so-you-want-my-job-nuclear-engineer/
Men's Interests and LifestyleSat, 01 Aug 2015 23:57:00 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.3By: Brett Alanhttp://www.artofmanliness.com/2009/01/07/so-you-want-my-job-nuclear-engineer/comment-page-1/#comment-1079910
Tue, 12 Aug 2014 07:06:00 +0000http://artofmanliness.com/?p=1247#comment-1079910I have an interview for a position as a nuclear engineer on Thursday. I found this article helpful. Thank you for sharing this.
]]>By: DirtBurnerhttp://www.artofmanliness.com/2009/01/07/so-you-want-my-job-nuclear-engineer/comment-page-1/#comment-528276
Sat, 21 Dec 2013 05:49:05 +0000http://artofmanliness.com/?p=1247#comment-528276Small world indeed, I’m presently engaged fulfilling transfer requirements to A&M for Petroleum Engineering, but have a marked interest in nuclear and have considered switching since I really do feel that nuclear is the future of energy, and my investment in petroleum is largely motivated by a need to pay student loans post grad since I have literally -NO- financial support from my family (not one of those senators’ sons, I’m afraid).

@Trevor, it should be noted that Fukushima could and should have been avoided. Not only were there fail safes in the very design of the plant that were not implemented, other suggested safety measures, such as a seawall capable of withstanding a tsunami’s ravages, were not installed. Safety drills were treated as a formality, and Tepco did not invest in retaining experienced specialists to address these potential issues. The need for safety is absolutely at the forefront with nuclear, but that need does not negate the necessity for the increased energy generation that nuclear can provide.

On another note, I’m all for “green” energy alternatives, but for all the proponents of solar and wind, their respective contributions toward overall energy demand is very low. And, while this may be conjecture, it seems companies adopt “green” policies and projects more for appearances than anything else. They’ve made relatively minute investments in replacing coal, and they have little monetary incentive to do otherwise.

After all, you can choose to pay more for priority on green energy in some places. Aren’t you so very socially conscious? Driving your prius and powering it with coal plants, replacing your battery after a few years to the tune of ten grand, and ‘reducing your carbon footprint’, at least in your own mind.

Sorry to rant. I live around a lot of yuppies in NorCal. It kind of gets to me.

With that aside, geothermal and hydroelectric of course have great potential, but hydroelectric has striking environmental costs and naturally viable geothermal fields are few and far between. There is research being done in how to make more areas capable of generating geothermal, safely and with minimal environmental impact, but there are no solutions on the horizon.

Personally, my somewhat uninformed opinion (being a student, I’m inherently unqualified, so let the stones fly) is that we should foray into LFTR technology again. They are incapable of meltdown, and consume fuel we currently deem “nuclear waste”. Of course, while we’ve had this technology since the 60s, liquid fluoride thorium reactors don’t produce the weapons grade plutonium that traditional uranium breeders do. Makes you think about the politics.

For those who would ask for sources, that shit is tedious and I don’t care about your opinion enough to provide them. If you care about your opinion, do your own research and come back at me with contrary figures should you think this is truly a fight worth having.

However, since I am taking somewhat of a political stance in my endorsement of LFTR’s, for those unfamiliar with the technology, I strongly recommend doing some reading. If you’re lazy or just a layman, here’s a handy youtube clip!

]]>By: Trevor Gowehttp://www.artofmanliness.com/2009/01/07/so-you-want-my-job-nuclear-engineer/comment-page-1/#comment-477949
Tue, 12 Nov 2013 21:54:16 +0000http://artofmanliness.com/?p=1247#comment-477949I agree with the author for the most part… but I think what happened in Japan recently shows that nuclear disaster is still a possibility. And saying your family is perfectly safe near the power plant is fine… unless one day they’re not.

I have little concerns if any one of you able to give me little comfort.
I have done my BS in chemical engineering and have received a scholarship offer for MS in nuclear engineering. What if after getting MS degree in N.E. with 5 years of experience can I switch to any nuclear power plant in UK or US?

]]>By: philTheEskimohttp://www.artofmanliness.com/2009/01/07/so-you-want-my-job-nuclear-engineer/comment-page-1/#comment-329862
Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:42:10 +0000http://artofmanliness.com/?p=1247#comment-329862Thanks for the great article, and thanks to all for the reader comments. I need to vent (nyuk nyuk) a thought about this debate on future power.
In the future we’re going to need a lot of power. A lot a lot. Our culture is built on cheap energy and we’re heading for trouble regardless. I think we’re going to need all the power we can get our hands on. A single-solution response to a critical problem like power generation is to me obviously unwise. Instead of talking about nuke OR coal OR solar OR pyramid OR whatever we must start talking about nuke AND coal AND solar AND … Any one-eyed solution on its own isn’t going to be enough. Not nearly enough. Most posters here are thoughtful and sincere, but everyone in this needs to stop treating the debate like a sport with a winner and losers and start thinking about a resilient, heterogenous, collaborative set of energy solutions that includes every available power generation method. It’s urgent.
]]>By: Nuke EThttp://www.artofmanliness.com/2009/01/07/so-you-want-my-job-nuclear-engineer/comment-page-1/#comment-99461
Sun, 11 Apr 2010 03:02:19 +0000http://artofmanliness.com/?p=1247#comment-99461Great Article, lots of pros and cons for nuclear energy. I’m a Navy Nuke with ten years of experience and it sounds like the civilian side of the nuclear industry is very similar to the military program. I wanted to work in the nuclear field when I get out but now I’m starting to rethink that decision.
]]>By: Matthttp://www.artofmanliness.com/2009/01/07/so-you-want-my-job-nuclear-engineer/comment-page-1/#comment-98203
Thu, 25 Mar 2010 05:16:49 +0000http://artofmanliness.com/?p=1247#comment-98203Small world daniel. I too am going to Texas A&M for nuclear engieering.
]]>By: danielhttp://www.artofmanliness.com/2009/01/07/so-you-want-my-job-nuclear-engineer/comment-page-1/#comment-97750
Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:16:00 +0000http://artofmanliness.com/?p=1247#comment-97750I mentioned the cost side of nuclear plants to an ex-navy nuke guy and his buddy. They thought this argument against nuclear engineering was very ironic, since over half the cost and the long delays are due to lawsuits and stalling by the likes of Greenpeace. I have also been accepted into a nuclear engineering program at Texas A&M.
BTW I am a libertarian, I hated Bush b/c of how loose he was with money. Obama is giving me a heart attack at 18.
Personally I think if the government got out of the way with the overly burdensome/excessive regulation nuclear power would be one of the premier sources of energy in the country today.
Despite Obama’s support for loans for the nuclear industry, I still can’t believe he pulled the plug on the Nevada waste depository. It makes you wonder about his true intentions
]]>By: What About Now?http://www.artofmanliness.com/2009/01/07/so-you-want-my-job-nuclear-engineer/comment-page-1/#comment-97024
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:34:48 +0000http://artofmanliness.com/?p=1247#comment-97024TooExpensive:

I am glad that you are driving the numbers and not just your liberal bias. But those who replied to you were effectively able to draw out your true liberal bend. Hence, I would like you to revisit your position now that Mr. Libertarian Obama has approved new construction on Nuclear Power Plants. Can you still defend this position with the numbers with your daddy going that direction, or is he just placating Republican pressure and trying to create jobs the Republican way because none of his pre-election rhetoric panned out? Is he showing that only Republican plans demonstrate PRACTICAL returns? And while you are at it, please address the $700 BILLION debt to China that libertarians poured into the economy like water into sand that our children will have to pay back with no return…as in the return of energy production. At least Nuclear Energy has a myriad of returns. It is far more important that the USA stay at the forefront of all areas of nuclear development on a global stage. The country that owns the most nuclear knowledge wins…not the country that gives away the most money to its citizens (or illegal guests) with zero show of return (i.e. willingness to WORK for their handouts.)

I do agree that it is best to have an industry that can stand on its own and not be forever in the red. And since you have identified the problem, what is your solution to the global energy crisis? You apparently have one…and it IS science based, right? The world is anxiously awaiting another libertarian savior to walk on water and solve our energy crisis…and YOU’RE IT obviously. Or is all your talk just more highlighting of Republican faults as seen through liberal eyes? Don’t we get enough of that kind of yellow journalism noise thru Michael Moore and Jon Stewart? What is your PRACTICAL solution to the energy dilemma? (I don’t expect a liberal to have a solution, just more finger pointing at Republicans. But give it your best shot.)

]]>By: TooExpensivehttp://www.artofmanliness.com/2009/01/07/so-you-want-my-job-nuclear-engineer/comment-page-1/#comment-91116
Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:08:24 +0000http://artofmanliness.com/?p=1247#comment-91116An another note, my purpose is not to instigate protests but disuade people from pursuing dead end careers in the nuclear industry. The jobs outlook is probably similar to that of people with computer science degrees during the dot com bubble. We couldn’t push them out of college fast enough and now look at them. They’re probably serving your coffee at Starbucks.

You’re better off getting a construction management degree so you can be involved with the building of it (if that ever happens) and to have something to fall back on. Face it, there aren’t many jobs to go around when it comes to operating a nuclear plant. What are the odds you will beat the next guy for the job when we have millions of people out of work (granted they may not be trained) and overseas talent who have actual experience designing/building/running a plant instead of you coming right out of school.

If it’s your dream, by all means go for it. Just keep in mind that it’s not a video game and the whole thing isn’t rigged for a happy ending no matter what you choose.